These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

920 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16708349)

  • 21. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment.
    Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA
    Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
    Whittaker TA
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Estimating effects of nursing intervention via propensity score analysis.
    Qin R; Titler MG; Shever LL; Kim T
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 19018219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study.
    Galadima HI; McClish DK
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Franklin JM; Glynn RJ; Solomon DH; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):401-9. PubMed ID: 23532053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The concept of the marginally matched subject in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC; Lee DS
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2009 Jun; 18(6):469-82. PubMed ID: 19319923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Hazard Ratio Estimators after Terminating Observation within Matched Pairs in Sibling and Propensity Score Matched Designs.
    Shinozaki T; Mansournia MA
    Int J Biostat; 2019 Jan; 15(1):. PubMed ID: 30648668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects.
    Franklin JM; Rassen JA; Ackermann D; Bartels DB; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(10):1685-99. PubMed ID: 24323618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2137-48. PubMed ID: 20108233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size.
    Pirracchio R; Resche-Rigon M; Chevret S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 May; 12():70. PubMed ID: 22646911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study.
    Austin PC; Small DS
    Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(24):4306-19. PubMed ID: 25087884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Propensity score matching and complex surveys.
    Austin PC; Jembere N; Chiu M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Apr; 27(4):1240-1257. PubMed ID: 27460539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
    Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study.
    Gayat E; Resche-Rigon M; Mary JY; Porcher R
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(3):222-9. PubMed ID: 22411785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score.
    Austin PC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Dec; 17(12):1218-25. PubMed ID: 18972455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. On the use and misuse of scalar scores of confounders in design and analysis of observational studies.
    Pfeiffer RM; Riedl R
    Stat Med; 2015 Aug; 34(18):2618-35. PubMed ID: 25781579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 20925139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 46.